Walk slowly in the opposite direction......they will catch up

NcdJd

jaymla627 wrote: »

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A selfish win/win for us, keep the power plant far away but get the benefit as long as the price is reasonable. I don't think I want an Irish run Nuclear plant tbh.

(Yes, I realise UK plants are closer).[/quo

Was listening to a podcast where their experimenting with salt cooled reactors that if a incident occurred they shut themselves down instead of a cherynobal type event with water cooled ones,

Yeah ya wouldn't want it coming under Irish water's control. There would be a mini melt down every summer due to water restrictions:D

richie123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A selfish win/win for us, keep the power plant far away but get the benefit as long as the price is reasonable. I don't think I want an Irish run Nuclear plant tbh.

(Yes, I realise UK plants are closer).

And a selfish win win for France wholl get to use our plentiful wind supply to help offset some of there emissions with renewables..in years to come obviously when we have more wind supply

richie123

richie123 wrote: »

And a selfish win win for France wholl get to use our plentiful wind supply to help offset some of there emissions with renewables..in years to come obviously when we have more wind supply

I'm not sure many wind farms have radioactive issues

Timmaay

The nuclear test plant in the south of France is ITER, its a test nuclear fusion plan, not thorium. Extremely impressive, however a pure white elephant, far too expensive and could well be obsolete by the time it's done. There are however a dozen or so private companies trying to crack commercial Fusion alot sooner (as in the next 10yrs). More modern clean fission or thorium power plants have an insanely expensive capital cost, they will payback massively after like 15yrs though, however governments are not willing to take the financial risk. Meanwhile solar pv costs appear to be ever reducing. As Elon musk says, we have a massive nuclear reactor in the sky already so why not just use it.

Timmaay

vincenzolorenzo wrote: »

They'd be PV panels on the roof, so generating electricity rather than hot water. The technology is simple and proven to work in an Irish climate. The downside with farming is that the load profile is not a good match for generation profile, particularly on dairy farms. Max generation at midday, and very little (relative) in morning or evening. So you're looking at battery storage instead, which adds €€€'s to the cost

You can use the solar PV to heat the hot water required for the dairyfarm with an electric element. Reasonably efficient also. Main downside is your looking at offsetting nightrate electricity because alternatively you'd try to be heating the water at night. No feed in tariff for the esb is still the most single backwards limitation to solar pv in Ireland however.

Birdnuts

richie123 wrote: »

And a selfish win win for France wholl get to use our plentiful wind supply to help offset some of there emissions with renewables..in years to come obviously when we have more wind supply

I fear we will end up like Denmark which has to dump excess wind energy into surrounding countries grids during windy spells and then has to shell out big money to keep its grid going via imported conventional power during calmer spells. No accident it now has the second highest highest power cost in the EU(just behind Germany who has also spend vast amounts of money on wind energy)

richie123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not sure many wind farms have radioactive issues

They will be using wind from Ireland to help offset emissions without having to build as many themselves..
In the future when we double our wind capacity

Bass Reeves

Birdnuts wrote: »

I fear we will end up like Denmark which has to dump excess wind energy into surrounding countries grids during windy spells and then has to shell out big money to keep its grid going via imported conventional power during calmer spells. No accident it now has the second highest highest power cost in the EU(just behind Germany who has also spend vast amounts of money on wind energy)

Solar and wind are only viable if you put in a storage system for max demand and for times of low productions winter for sat and when there is no or low wind . There was 1-2 idea's on these. One to sort max demand was that people would plug there cars I to the grid and that power would be extracted back. However this would limit car usage for a few hours during and after max demand.

The only option for large storage for variable power sources is a hydro storage system. There is one in Scotland I think and a few in Scandinavian countries. It would be similar the way water is backed up for the Ardnacrusha power station. You would literally build a dam a cross an inlet where the sea comes in. You would flood the area behind the dam.


The theory us you would need 25-30 days storage minimum. Maybe with a combined wind/ solar you could reduce that but you would have to future proof as well. When there was excess electricity at night and times of high wind you would pump sea water behind the dam. When you need more electricity than your wind and solar provides you flood water through your turbines. The big disadvantage is you would have to flood a large area, The area flooded would need to be higher than the turbines to get enough electricity. You need massive turbines to supply such energy.

The cost.of the project would be in the 20-15 billion range the last time I heard about it

Birdnuts

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Solar and wind are only viable if you put in a storage system for max demand and for times of low productions winter for sat and when there is no or low wind . There was 1-2 idea's on these. One to sort max demand was that people would plug there cars I to the grid and that power would be extracted back. However this would limit car usage for a few hours during and after max demand.

The only option for large storage for variable power sources is a hydro storage system. There is one in Scotland I think and a few in Scandinavian countries. It would be similar the way water is backed up for the Ardnacrusha power station. You would literally build a dam a cross an inlet where the sea comes in. You would flood the area behind the dam.


The theory us you would need 25-30 days storage minimum. Maybe with a combined wind/ solar you could reduce that but you would have to future proof as well. When there was excess electricity at night and times of high wind you would pump sea water behind the dam. When you need more electricity than your wind and solar provides you flood water through your turbines. The big disadvantage is you would have to flood a large area, The area flooded would need to be higher than the turbines to get enough electricity. You need massive turbines to supply such energy.

The cost.of the project would be in the 20-15 billion range the last time I heard about it

Yes the costs are huge and you need geography like Norway(loads of Fjords) to make it any way viable or usefull

blue5000

I think the old open cast mine in the Silvermine mountains near Nenagh is a proposed site for one of these. Pump the water back up at night when power demand is low and turn it on again to the grid when peak power supply is needed. Poulaphouca in Wicklow already works this way.

cal naughton

blue5000 wrote: »

I think the old open cast mine in the Silvermine mountains near Nenagh is a proposed site for one of these. Pump the water back up at night when power demand is low and turn it on again to the grid when peak power supply is needed. Poulaphouca in Wicklow already works this way.

Turlough hill in Wicklow is the one I think you meant. It's Ireland's only pumped storage power station

Bass Reeves

blue5000 wrote: »

I think the old open cast mine in the Silvermine mountains near Nenagh is a proposed site for one of these. Pump the water back up at night when power demand is low and turn it on again to the grid when peak power supply is needed. Poulaphouca in Wicklow already works this way.

The problem is these are all small scale projects. Poulaphouca is 25 MW, and the two smaller ones below are 4mw each. The newer wind turbines are over 1 MW each. Just start counting

patsy_mccabe

Timmaay wrote: »

....... As Elon musk says, we have a massive nuclear reactor in the sky already so why not just use it.

A massive nuclear reactor and no danger on nuclear fallout.

Dickie10

dont see solar farms ever being of much use in ireland surely we dont get enough solar energy to be worth it? plus they look worse than evergreen forestry , some blight on the landscape. the one place they would blend is bogland? surely a decent spot for them. i would imagine the likes of ireland with an extremely efficient food production syytem in proteins from grass should be made keep its lands in grass to feed the worlds growing population in decades to come in the most environmentally efficent manner , ourselves britain the few other areas that avoid drought in europe and uruguay, southern brazil, nz and parts of Australia. African countrues are sitting on a unbeliveable place for solar energy imagine the Sahara and Kalahari. or am i missing something?

Birdnuts

Dickie10 wrote: »

. African countrues are sitting on a unbeliveable place for solar energy imagine the Sahara and Kalahari. or am i missing something?

It would certainly work better there for obvious reasons and the fact that its output corresponds much better with peak demands for power generation ie. air con, which obviously is not the case here.

Mad_maxx

Dickie10 wrote: »

dont see solar farms ever being of much use in ireland surely we dont get enough solar energy to be worth it? plus they look worse than evergreen forestry , some blight on the landscape. the one place they would blend is bogland? surely a decent spot for them. i would imagine the likes of ireland with an extremely efficient food production syytem in proteins from grass should be made keep its lands in grass to feed the worlds growing population in decades to come in the most environmentally efficent manner , ourselves britain the few other areas that avoid drought in europe and uruguay, southern brazil, nz and parts of Australia. African countrues are sitting on a unbeliveable place for solar energy imagine the Sahara and Kalahari. or am i missing something?

Africa is very rich in numerous things but the political instability puts Western money off

China does it's own thing in Africa

Solar panels would indeed look awful ugly on the landscape

Bass Reeves

Dickie10 wrote: »

dont see solar farms ever being of much use in ireland surely we dont get enough solar energy to be worth it? plus they look worse than evergreen forestry , some blight on the landscape. the one place they would blend is bogland? surely a decent spot for them. i would imagine the likes of ireland with an extremely efficient food production syytem in proteins from grass should be made keep its lands in grass to feed the worlds growing population in decades to come in the most environmentally efficent manner , ourselves britain the few other areas that avoid drought in europe and uruguay, southern brazil, nz and parts of Australia. African countrues are sitting on a unbeliveable place for solar energy imagine the Sahara and Kalahari. or am i missing something?

You still need storage. In really hot area like you named , night is as long as day most of the time. Demand would still be high during 3-6 hours of darkness. Solar would be grand for during the day to power everything, even allowing for interconnect power grids with other countries you still could not provide 24/7 power from solar only. You then need a storage system or a power source that will instantly kick in.

Jjameson

The opposite direction to repeating the same deadbeat enterprise perpetually, and keeping a beef processing cartel rolling in their greed is still towards the parlour,

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/agribusiness-and-food/glanbia-s-new-130m-portlaoise-plant-to-be-hub-for-europe-s-mozzarella-1.3566596?mode=amp

All the ado about putting a small beef processing plant in back of beyonds, co Offaly. and I seem little or nothing about this.

yosemitesam1

Birdnuts wrote: »

It would certainly work better there for obvious reasons and the fact that its output corresponds much better with peak demands for power generation ie. air con, which obviously is not the case here.

Dust and sand are likely to be two major issues. They would need a lot of water to maintain in areas that haven't got much to spare.

Birdnuts

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Dust and sand are likely to be two major issues. They would need a lot of water to maintain in areas that haven't got much to spare.

That is true - though from my visits to rural areas of Kenya and Zim a couple of years ago, it has its uses on a micro scale eg. individual units for rural dwellers to reduce their dependency on fuelwood for cooking,hotwater etc.(and its attendant problems with deforestation and desetification)